Customer Reviews

Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness?

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

John Piper is among the most respected American pastors of our day, in part because he comprehensively integrates pastoral theology with biblical and systematic theology in a way that produces a full-orbed Christian perspective and grounding.

In this book, Piper focuses on the imputation of righteousness that is central to the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. Many giants of the faith regard the doctrine of justification as a showstopper doctrine, essential to a right understanding of Christianity. As such, it is no surprise that similar to other essential tenets of the faith such as the Trinity, the resurrection, and the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the doctrine of justification is a stumbling block for many that has resulted in various forms of retreat.

The latest retreat comes at the hands of Robert Gundry, who attempts to argue that the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer as a result of faith is unbiblical. He argues instead that the inherent faith of the believer is what is counted as righteous in the act of justification, rather than a transfer of Christ's righteousness to us through faith. While this might seem a nuanced difference, in reality, it goes straight to the core of what it means to be justified. Gundry's view in a number of respects is much closer to Roman Catholicism's irresponsible mixing of justification and sanctification in ways that render many sections of Scripture unintelligible. Gundry believes that the act of justification (of our inherent faith) defeats the mastery of sin over our lives (which is traditionally the separate work of sanctification), rather than a legal transfer of Christ's righteousness to us as the basis for justification and the sole grounding for subsequent sanctification. Gundry's view represents a basic retreat on the doctrine of justification, a retreat that at its core resembles all other retreats in elevating the inherent abilities of man and taking away from the work of God by wholly underestimating the pervasive nature of human sin and overestimating man's inherent abilities.

It is this position that Piper interacts with in this book. Chapter 3 of the book is clearly the most crucial, since this is where he offers an exegetical critique of Gundry and in the process, validates the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer that is central to justification. Piper's examination of Romans 1-6 in particular is outstanding, along with 2 Corinthians 5. He builds a logical, step by step case that reveals how Gundry's position is untenable, and provides believers with a great deal of reassurance that Christ's imputed righteousness, rather than their sin-tainted acts, is the basis of our right standing with God.

I will note some minor quibbles with the book that deserve mention but do not significantly detract from the outstanding presentation given by Piper. First, there are times when Piper tends to devote too much ink to peripheral points (at best). The book is four chapters long, yet the reader will find that a good portion of the first chapter doesn't really deal with justification as much as it is a lament by Piper on the theological emptiness that pervades many evangelical churches. And while this is certainly a view I strongly agree with, I found it a bit misplaced here. Second, in his examination of Romans 5, Piper spends several pages trying to demonstrate that Paul had infants in mind in this passage of Scripture. While the discussion is interesting, it is a peripheral point that is not central to Piper's overall argument that Romans 5 discusses the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer in contrast to the imputation of Adam's sin to all of humanity. Lastly, Piper avoids the often thorny topic of whether faith is a gift of God or not. While I admit that my thoughts on this are far from complete, it seems to me that this question is pertinent to the discussion on justification and has ramifications on Gundry's view and Piper's response to it. But it seems as if the whole topic is not in view in this discussion, when I think perhaps it should be.

These quibbles are clearly quite minor, and as such, should not discourage potential readers from picking up this book. The doctrine of justification is possibly the most important issue of the Christian faith that's rarely discussed, and as such, is very vulnerable to wayward error creeping in. This book plugs the leak within the body of Christ on the question of imputation and does it in a charitable yet thorough way. Given Gundry's history of doctrinal hiccups, I have rarely considered him to be an authority on doctrine and theology, but the fact is that many other people do consider him to be an authority. As such, his retreat on justification deserved a high profile response from a solidly evangelical perspective. This book is it.

Just as the title doesn't mince words, this book presents a clear and concise examination of the issue at stake: the historic protestant doctine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and with that, the very issue of justification itself. This is a timely response to the controversy and growing defection from the doctrine in evangelical and reformed circles. In the first chapter, Piper spells out his motivation for the book: the theological and practical implications of the doctrine. The second chapter carefully defines the specifics of the question at stake. The third chapter contains the exegetical arguments, and the forth concludes the book.

Piper writes with passion and with a pastor's heart. With that, I am struck all the more by how careful and even-toned his exegesis is, when so many passionate arguments are little more than polemics consisting of slogans and unexplained proof-texts. Piper uses no such rhetoric, remaining respectful to his theological opponents, even acknowledging how certain texts could, by the letter, fit their position. But Piper builds a solid case that the righteousness of the elect is that of Christ, not by force-fitting proof texts into a pre-conceived systematic, but by a level-headed consideration of the context and the flow of the text.

Though short, this book is not always light reading. Many of the arguments require a great deal of chewing on. It probably has to do with Piper trying to provide as much clarity as possible. This is a welcome contrast to much of the opposing literature which uses familiar terminology in vague statements that end up lulling the reader into feeling good about what was said, rather than rigorously thinking about and understanding it (and how it might deviate from the historic position).

There was a time when I did not think the doctine of imputed righteousness to be of much importance. For those who find themselves in that position, I cannot recommend this book enough. It is a wonderful thing that Christ is truly our all in all, our righteousness as well as our penal substitute; that our standing before God is secure in our union with Christ in heaven and not in a performance that we have to pull off. Indeed, it is the obedience of Christ, active and the passive, that provides the firm foundation of our salvation. No hope without it.

What a wonderful book this is, combining pastoral warmth with exegetical precision in the defense and confirmation of the very heart of the Christian gospel: justification by faith alone. Piper shows that sinners are made right with God through the righteousness of Christ which is credited to them. That this is being challenged to me today is mind-boggling. Why do people want to destroy such good news? Why wrestle against what is so lucid and clear and Scriptural? Well, the threats are there and John Piper has faced them. Chapter one describes the many personal reasons in family, church, culture, and the nations why this issue is so important. Chapters two and three set out the challenge to this doctrine and defend the truth exegetically. Piper is polite to his opponent (Robert Gundry) and honest with his arguments. There is no mispresentation. This is an excellent book. The Discerning Reader named this book of the year. Thanks to Pastor John for writing it and thanks to Crossway for publishing it.

John Piper is hard NOT to respect. He is among a handful of solid theologians who makes the effort to address the challenges to the evangelical faith (from within) with grace, clarity, and sincerity.

In this work, Piper defends the traditional evangelical understanding of imputed righteousness, i.e., that when a person trusts Christ, he not only has his sins forgiven but is, on the positive side, given the righteousness of Christ. This concept, imputed righteousness, is currently being challenged from within evangelicalism.

Piper quotes the leading proponent of this view, Dr. Robert Gundry, explains Gundry's perspective, and contrasts it to the traditional one. He then explores the relevant Scriptures and demonstrates why Gundry is wrong. He attempts to lead the reader to conclude that the Scriptures do in fact teach that we are counted as righteous once we are in Christ. We exchange our sin for His righteousness.

Piper is not really much of a salesman. Although his language is clear and his sincerity obvious, it is the strength of the Scriptures themselves that do the convincing. And that is not bad! I highly recommend this work. The serious laymen can understand this volume, but it is not "pop Christian" by any means, but requires the reader to think. And that's not bad, either!

As we see more and more challenges either directly toward the heart of the Gospel or the periphery, it is great to have Piper on our side! Here is my favorite quotation from this brief volume. The argument is that if Paul had taught Gundry's view in Romans 1-5, the questions of chapter 6 would never have arisen (this is more formidable than meets the eye; if our version of the Gospel does not result in these questions, we may be preaching the wrong message!):

"The doctrine of justification by faith apart from works raises the question, 'Are we to continue in sin that grace may increase?...And shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?' The raising of these questions is a powerful indication that justification does not include liberation from the mastery of sin. For if it did, these questions would not plausibly arrive..." Good stuff!

This book is written to defend the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness against the recent attack by fellow evangelicals (specifically Robert Gundry) who claim the doctrine is not biblical. The doctrine of Imputed Righteousness teaches that through faith, Christ's righteousness is imputed (or credited or reckoned) to us as our righteousness. Gundry, on the other hand, claims that it is our faith itself that is imputed to us as our righteousness. Gundry has committed the age-old error of misunderstanding the mere instrumentality of faith.

Piper proves his case by following through the biblical arguments made by Paul. Readers who take the trouble of closely following the trail laid by Piper will find the evidence for Imputed Righteousness indisputable.

Personally I feel that the biblical support for Imputed Righteousness is strong but indirect. This is because Paul is more concerned about proving that salvation comes through faith and seems to take the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer for granted. This is probably why evangelicals (and even evangelical theologians) can confuse the issue. It also makes Piper's effort to prove the doctrine doubly difficult, having to examine the whole of Paul's argument rather than merely quoting single verses. Sometimes Piper is forced to combine multiple passages. Much to his credit, he does it in a way that makes his complex arguments still comprehensible to the non-scholarly mind (even though at times, the mind needs a little stretching).

Is this book important? Is it worth the time and effort to digest it? A resounding YES! to that. Imputed Righteousness falls under the class of doctrines called Soteriology (ie. salvation doctrines) and to me, anything that falls under Soteriology had best be taken seriously. Imputed Righteousness also gives glory to the One who deserves all glory, our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. He has covered us with His righteousness and it is only right that we learn about it and affirm and defend this teaching.

This book caught my eye and kept me enthralled! I will certainly read it again and have already recommended it to friends who are serious about their faith. The book awakened me to the real threat of compromising on this crucial issue. Piper writes with heart while maintaining intellectual integrity. This work is a must read for pastors, missionaries, counselors and disciple-makers who continually deal with pressure to compromise the uncompromisable in the name of contextualization. A gospel without imputation is no real gospel at all, and as Piper makes so clear, the idea is antithetical to scripture!

Enjoy the read!

Firstly, it is nice and short (140p), good for those who have to study other books for college courses. There are only 4 Chapters and an introduction, with a clear numbering system for each section that should make it an easy book to discuss.

Intro: Full outline of the argument

1. The Setting in family, church, culture, and nations

2. The contemporary challenge

3. An exegetical response to the challenge

4. Conclusion

As you can see from the chapter headings it is a response to a new theology of Justification that denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Consequently, it has a polemical style and focusses on the issues raised by this new approach. For me, it is reminiscent of Leon Morris's two great books on the atonement.

The apostolic preaching of the cross (1984)
The atonement: It's meaning & significance (1984)

It is a slightly odd book because 3 out of the 4 chapters are very easy reading, whilst the 3rd chapter is quite dense exegesis. In the first two chapters Piper provides a great overview of the practical importance of the doctrine of imputed righteousness. The fourth chapter is just a summing up of what he has said in the whole book.

Is it worth reading? It depends on where you are at. I found it very encouraging and affirming on the crucial nature of this doctrine. It didn't really expand my thinking so much as provide a solid basis for believing. I also liked being put in the picture about current trends in theology. It will help me spot the position when reading commentaries etc.

The exegetical chapter was clear, solid and well argued but I don't think he has totally proven his case on all points.

It could be that the purpose of God ordaining errors to make headway in the church is to clarify a certain critical detail of a cardinal Christian doctrine that is often overlooked. What I mean is, in this case, for example, though the doctrine justification by faith consists of propitiation and imputation, it seems only the former is often highlighted in the pulpits, while the latter is rarely touched upon or even neglected altogether. The defense on the doctrine of imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in justification is what John Piper presents in response to challenges against it by Robert Gundry; who aligns himself with the so-called "New Perspective" movement (p.125) within the evangelical circle. They are summarized in four points (p.47-48). First, our righteousness consists of faith. Second, justification does not involve any positive imputation of divine righteousness; neither God's nor Christ's to believers. Third, justification involves sanctification. Here Gundry blurs the line between the two while they are actually separate yet inseparable in the sense that when one is there, the other must be also. In other words, a justified person is sanctified and vice versa. And fourth being the call to actions on the basis of the objections presented, is that the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believing sinners needs to be abandoned as unbiblical.

Piper's response to these challenges consists of a general non-exegetical response in the first section, and the exegetical one in the second section. In the first section, Piper first explains why doctrines matter before delving into a more specific why the doctrine of imputation matters. He presents eight compelling reasons why this is the case; why it matters for believers as individuals and their family to world evangelization to worship, and most importantly, the supremacy of God in all things, which is kind of predictable whenever you read Piper's books. Piper presents an interesting argument that if what Gundry's challenges were true, then he warns that we will have to eliminate certain wonderful worship songs from our hymn books; some of them are the ones I cherish dearly; Charles Wesley's "And Can It Be" (specifically the line that says, "Alive in Him, my living Head, and clothed in the righteousness divine"), Steve and Vikki Cook's "I will glory in my Redeemer" (the line that says, "The Lamb who is my righteousness"), and Graham Kendrick's "Knowing You" (the line that says, "Knowing you, Jesus,... you're my joy, my righteousness.") (p.35-37).

Now the weight of Piper's defense lies in the second section; the exegetical study on mostly Romans, 2 Corinthians, and Philippians that answer Gundry's four challenges; a most rigorous study that I have read on the subject of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believing sinners. Here I would say we can go without the first section, but not without this second one. In fact, the exegetical response is the solid-rock basis for all the points Piper makes in the first section. In responding to an argument that faith consists of righteousness, one might be mistaken here due to a potentially misleading translation of the words "eis dikaiosunhn" in for examples Rom 4:3,9 which I know in certain translations such as NIV, are translated as "as righteousness" instead of "for righteousness." The former seems to view faith to be righteousness, while in the latter, "eis" means "for the purpose of" and therefore implies that faith is an instrument for righteousness, not the righteousness itself. But this is just a portion of a bigger argument in Romans that centers around the word "logizomai" and "beha" in Romans 4 and Genesis 15:6 as the basis of Paul thinking of justification in terms of "crediting, reckoning and imputing", supported by the analogy of work and wage, versus faith and righteousness in Rom 4:5-6, as well as the parallel of these verses to Rom 3:28 where "justified by faith" in the latter is parallel equivalent to "credits righteousness" in the former (p. 54-59).

Rom 3:21-22 and 2 Cor 5:21 are the main response to Gundry's second thesis. It seems clear as day to me, and this is probably why Piper doesn't spend too much ink on this, that it is the righteousness of God in Rom 3:21-22 that comes "dia pistews Ihsou Xristou" where "dia" indicates "means" or "instrument." But what is the outcome of faith in Jesus Christ but justification? So by inductive logic, justification does consist of imputation of God's righteousness. This argument goes further, however, to claim that this imputed divine righteousness is the righteousness of Christ. The most solid exegetical basis of this is presented beautifully by looking at the parallel of the imputation of Adam's sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness in Romans 5:12-19. "Just as through one man sin entered the world and death through sin" in v.12-14, 15, 17-19 is parallel to "so also through one man, Jesus Christ, righteousness entered the world and life through righteousness" (paraphrase of v. 17b, 18b). "... and sin spread to all who are in Adam, because all sinned in Adam and his sin was imputed to them" (paraphrase of v. 12-14, 15, 17-19) is parallel to "... and life spread to all who are in Christ because all were righteous in him and his righteousness is imputed to them" (paraphrase of v. 17b, 18b, 19b) (p.93). I think "and his righteousness is imputed to them" should have been "because his righteousness is imputed to them."

The error of Gundry's third view may lie in stretching "dedikaiotai apo ths hamartias" in Rom 6:7 to mean "liberated from sin" in the sense of sanctification as opposed to "liberated from the guilt and condemnation of sin." Piper answers this confusion of mingling sanctification and justification by arguing that if justification is sanctification that includes liberation from the mastery of sin, then what is the point of Romans 6:1 and 15 to begin with? What Piper could have added here also is Paul's struggle with the law of sin within his members in Rom 7:23 and Romans 7 in general. From these, in addition to Romans 8, he came to the conclusion, "... God's imputing his own righteousness to us by faith apart from works does not result in lawlessness, but in fact necessarily leads to righteous living (which is the thesis of Romans 6)" and "Justification is the necessary and prior basis of sanctification" (p.78).

Upon examining a rigorous logical exegetical analysis of the doctrine of imputation in this study, I see no reason to support Gundry's views because they do not represent a true Scriptural view. They could be potentially detrimental instead since they might strengthen the appeal of other erroneous doctrines; as I think of Arminianism and Wesley's doctrine of sinless perfection feeding on Gundry's first, second and third view.

I picked this book up because of my recent exposure to those who deny the imputation of Christ's "active" obedience on behalf of believers. Some proponents of New Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism have headed in the direction of denying the historically-protestant doctrine of imputation, not to mention the classical objections from Rome and semi-pelagians, but Piper certainly meets their objections head-on.

The book is a short 125 pages, but don't let that fool you, for the main thrust of his argument (the third chapter) is loaded with solid and meticulous exegesis. In short, Piper interacts with a treatise by Robert Gundry, and does so in the humble, pastoral way we've come accustomed to with Piper.

The book can really be broken down into four parts, as follows:

1. Evidence that the righteousness imputed to us is external and not our faith.
a. To this, Piper examines and exegetes the following texts: Rom 4:5-6 paralleled with Rom 3:28; Rom 4:9-11; 10:10; Phil 3:8-9.

2. The external righteousness credited to us is God's
a. To this, Piper examines and exegetes the following texts: Rom 3:20 - 4:6; 2 Cor 5:21

3. Justification is not liberation from sin's mastery [and by this Piper means perfectionism, infused righteousness, salvation by our continual effort, etc.]
a. To this, Piper examines and exegetes the following texts: Rom 6:6-7; flow of thought in Rom 8:3-4

4. The divine righteousness imputed to believers is the righteousness of Jesus Christ
a. To this, Piper examines and exegetes the following texts: 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 10:4; Rom 5:12-19

Personally, I would see his exegesis of Romans 5:12-19 to be his most potent and thorough argument. This section alone is worth the price of the book.

Conclusion:
This book absolutely deserves the highest rating, five stars. Piper defends the doctrine that is at the very heart of the Christian faith, and does so in such a warm, thorough manner, that the believer who is indeed covered by Jesus Christ's perfect righteousness will no doubt leap for joy. In the face of such shoddy theology in this land, not to mention the shallowness of the American church which probably can't even define the term `active obedience', this doctrine of imputation of Christ's obedience by faith alone has fallen by the wayside. I would submit that many errors of pelagianism, salvation-by-merit or works, and even self-willed sanctification begin with a misunderstanding or misconstruing of this precious doctrine.

Are we counted righteous based upon God's righteousness and not our own? Is this righteousness imputed or `counted' to us by faith alone, as opposed to `infused' or self-merited? Is this righteousness the perfect obedience of the second Adam, Jesus Christ, in our place? Piper proves from scripture that the answer to these questions is without a shadow of a doubt, `Yes'. And this, my friends, *is* the gospel. And the defense of the gospel in the face of error never gets old.

Out of 5 stars, I give this one a strong 5. Without a doubt, this is a must-have must-read.

Piper writes with conviction and passion. He lets the Text drive his thoughts, yet considers other implications. The doctrine of Christ's imputed righteousness is at stake in evangelicalism. Piper deals with the Text submissively, faithfully and expositionaly. He sees himself as a student of the Bible. Not the other around. In this brief exposition, Piper has helped us to treat Scriptures carefully in light of other texts and demonstrated that the doctrine of Christ's imputed righteousness is the sinner's only hope. Piper's argument is compelling, persuasive and engaging. "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him "(2 Cor. 5.21).